"Battle of Stamford Bridge (SAGA 19pt)" Topic

With a group of gamers we have a go at recreating Stamford Bridge using the SAGA rules.
The game was fantastic fun, and i really have to say how much fun multiplayer SAGA games can be.

link

Hope you enjoy!

I am very sorry to give a negative comment. Although I am glad that you had fun, I would like to point out that invader Harald Hardrada commanded approximately 9.000 men, while Harold Godwinson had about 15.000 men.

Your pictures show perhaps something like 100 figures ?

So you played a skirmish situated in the 11th century, which had absolutely nothing to do with the famous battle in 1066. Of course you can have fun with that and I will be the last to deny you having fun. But calling this "Stamford Bridge" (or, as I noticed elsewhere, any other name of some famous "real" battle) is a sacrilege of history and disrespectful and thus ridiculous. I realize the growing number of "skirmish" rules and people who love these and have fun with these can of course do so at their heart's content. But please save the real battles for those who put the effort in trying to build large armies and thus honour history.

You are coming across as a bit harsh, perhaps unintentionally.

"Bathtubbing" famous battles and campaigns is a long established process in wargaming, going back to Donald Featherstone and Charles Grant.

How is this different than playing ANY historical battle at anything other than a 1:1 figure scale, or for that matter the correct number of re-enactors in a field?

How is it "a sacrilege of history and disrespectful and thus ridiculous?" We are playing at history and battle. What I am hearing is "Sorry old bean, that is not the correct way to play pretend soldiers."

@Celtofkernow, thank you for sharing and I like your game mat, where did you get it?

I would also like to point out that some of the "figures" were "wearing" garments that were dyed in "colors" not available until the late 12th century. For shame.

I always appreciate his battle reports and he puts a lot of effort into making them available for all to enjoy.

It seems both the Saxons and Vikings returned neatly rounded figures for the numbers of their followers that turn up for the battle that day?Good show!

Jolly good show. And this is a fine miniatures battle.

If you have nothing nice to say then don't say anything at all.

"Bathtubbing" famous battles and campaigns is a long established process in wargaming, going back to Donald Featherstone and Charles Grant.

Personally, I find "bathtubbing" slightly ludicrous since it plays havoc with time, movement and ranges so that IMHO you end up with something that only very vaguely resembles the battle that it is supposed to represent.

Many thanks for the comments!

@ Jozis Tin Man – Board is painted MDF, i made, so thanks (also both dual sided with other effects for other systems normally Space or Sea )

@ Porthos – As for the negative one, fair cop, i am not reacting the exact battle for a couple of reasons:

1: SAGA (19pts)- this recreation has set rules ant size to which i am working with.
2: Love to to see some battles with 20,000 men on the board but my budget is limited to what i can afford.(As a re-enactor i haven't been to the "Battle of Hastings" without much more than 1000 re-enactors, but still a re-enactment")
3: If i was creating the battle exactly the result would also be pre-determined, thus a waste of time playing :D

The scenario was created using the games system, and what happened on the day in mind. So i could of called it the "Battle in which the the Anglo-Danes led by Harold Godwinson leads a surprise attack over a bridge against a divided viking army led by Harald Hadrada set in 1066", but it would fill up the title. "Battle of Stamford Bridge" covered the aim of the game, and to those of a historical persuasion would understand the situation of the game.

But noted, and will try to more accurately label my topics.

Dha weles!

@MajorB "you end up with something that only very vaguely resembles the battle that it is supposed to represent."

This is the oldest debate in gaming, right? Simulation versus game. I am on the spectrum that everything we are doing only vaguely resembles the battle and we can only recreate slices of "reality." (unless people start shooting arrows at me during a Dark Ages game)

I believe our wargames can be simulations to a degree, but nothing like military grade simulations. Being a good general in Napoleon's Battles does not mean you would do well if magically thrust into Napoleon's shoes, while performing well at NTC will probably help improve your skills as a battalion commander as well as your staff. But being an avid Napoleonics player may give you some insight into the period, tactics, and generalship problems.

I find bathtubbing can be useful to recreate the general situation of a battle and the decisions commanders would have faced, but YMMV. Horses for courses.

But I have veered off topic…

Good to hear some of the posters are looking after their personal cleanliness. I think all Wargamers could do with regular bathtubbing.

Nice looking game, that's good enough for me and most people. history and historical ers!

I believe our wargames can be simulations to a degree, but nothing like military grade simulations.

The military are using more commercial game systems these days than you might think.

This is the oldest debate in gaming, right?

Is it?

Simulation versus game.

No, I would not equate bathtubbing with either sumulation or game.

I am on the spectrum that everything we are doing only vaguely resembles the battle and we can only recreate slices of "reality."

So am I.

However, it stretches my "willing suspension of disbelief" to breaking point when (for example) a unit representing a brigade has a musket range equivalent to the entire frontage of the unit (or even more!) when as we all know, musket range was roughly the same as the frontage of a battalion.

Thank you for the reactions (apart from the not very intelligent one by Twilight Samurai (so bleep you ;-)).

@ Jozis Tin Man: of course I do not object the game, I do however object to call this "Stamford Bridge". A number of years ago I organized Hastings, played with (IIRC) something like 4.000 28mm figures. Since the number of men in this historical battle is varied between something like 12.000 to 24.000 this means between 1/3rd tot 1/6th if the real number. Therefore what you see on the table is an impression of what it probably could have looked like. It is not necessary to only use a scale of 1:1.

Not everyone seems to realize that in historical games we are always talking about things that really happened with real people who really fought and died there and then. I feel the need to show respect, which seems to lack in some cases. I will, for instance, NEVER use a ruleset that is called "Snappy Nappy".

I do hope to made myself somewhat clearer, and shown not wanted to be harsh.

@Porthos, I understand your position. Everyone has their own gaming aesthetic, I wish I could get 4000 28mm figures on the table!

@ Porthos: Be great to see a Hastings battle with 4,000 miniatures on it. You have any photo's? What system you use? How big was the table? How long did it take take to play?

'faid biggest i have manged was near 1000 miniatures for the battle of Trebia, though it was 10mm scale which helped!

Very nice.
Could you put the forces you used for each side on your blog?

Wow that is a huge SAGA battle, thanks for sharing your report and youtube.

I'm a bit perplexed (actually a lot) how using SAGA and a limited number of figures is not showing the proper respect for the dead of 1066, logically war games is showing disrespect for the dead if we were to expand this line of thought.

Anyway I loved your report Celtofkernow, and the table, did you sponge the paint?

@ Dexter: will try and put it up tonight on the blog. Thanks!

@ Cailleach: Painted on the base colours (Very dark brown and Dark Green) then sponged the top 2 shades. Cheers!

A short shower is also an option.

I think your representation of the battle is perfect. Remember folks this a Hobby of abstract and little toy soldiers. Unless of course you have bottomless pockets.

I'm assuming you're playing where each player has his own set of dice…?

@ raylev: Yes, and using battle brothers so dice could be traded between allied sides.

@CeltofKernow: this was already many years ago. We had the space available of a tabletoptennis club (it is impossible to use only one table, but with three or four tables in a row you can do something like Hastings because this is about two lines and no hooks (other than Gettysburg for instance). We had something like 20 people playing, and with such a group it is not too difficult to get so many figures on the table. I have only about 400 Saxons available, and perhaps 200 Normans that not even are painted yet (but they will for the next Hastings battle) but success is in the numbers, not bottomless pockets ;-))).
The largest battle (or better: campaign) was at least thirty years ago, using a large hall with fourty players both from The Netherlands and Germany doing The Crusades. With Europe and Asia to pass through, fighting the Byzantines, crossing the mountains and try to conquer Jeruzalem that was about 4 feet by 4 feet. All players had a lot of fun during this weekend. Photos however not digital…
We do not have that space anymore (in fact, having space is enormously difficult), so most large battles are now in 15mm. I found a picture of a game in a museum: 15mm ACW Antietam, that gives a small impression,but I do not know how to upload it. Any help ?

I am very sorry to give a negative comment.

No you're not. If you were going to be sorry about saying it then why say it ? The poster hadn't asked for comments and discussion about whether this is the "correct" way to simulate the battle, so your comments were completely uncalled for.

But calling this "Stamford Bridge" (or, as I noticed elsewhere, any other name of some famous "real" battle) is a sacrilege of history and disrespectful and thus ridiculous.

No, it's this comment that is ridiculous. I actually agree with some of the points you make (although for the reason of accuracy of simulation, not the ludicrous notion of sacrelige and respect for the dead – do you really think it would have bothered Harold and Harald to know that in 1000 years time a reenactment of their battle would be portrayed by 100 toy soldiers ?). However, the place to discuss such points would be on another thread about bathtubbing, rather than on this thread where the OP was simply sharing a game he'd run.

Yeah Marshal Mark!

Btw: what is bathtubbing.

@ Celtofkernow.

I very much like Saga but have not (yet) gamed anything as big as your Stamford Bridge or anything multi-player.

Nice to see both are possible.

Thanks for the pictures & report which was very well done.
I wish TMP had more stuff like this on it.

@Porthos: haven't worked how to upload photo's straight to here yet either. Big games with 40 players is a bit out of my scope, but i hope to rally a few more players to our Hastings game. Sounds great to get the big games in though!

@ Ochoin: Many thanks. Well worth getting some multiplayers in, they are great fun.

haven't worked how to upload photos straight to here yet either.

You can't. You need to use a photo hosting site such as Photobucket or Flickr, or even your own blog.

+2 Marshall Mark.